Obama, the Wall-Street sellout

[Craig234]

During the 2008 campaign, I said the US needed another FDR, and that I had real concerns whether Obama fit the bill. I hoped he would. He wasn't my first choice, or second.

Since he has been president, I've said there are a number of ways he's been far better than McCain (or Bush) would have - but others he's been quite bad, some as bad as them.

The US still needs that FDR figure; it needs someone to the left of him in 2012. And there's almost no chance of the happening.

Some of the 'progressive authors' are saying this same thing more. There was today a Glenn Greenwald piece referencing a Matt Taibbi piece referencing a Frank Rich piece.

Obama is being called out for 'forgetting' his 2008 campaign pledge to fix the hedge fund loophole (as Keith Olbermann IIRC pointed out last night, having just 25 hedge fund managers pay the same income tax rates as others - as they did before the loophole was given to them as part of the 2001 Bush borrowed tax cuts - it would raise $4 billion per year). Not going to fix the deficit, but this is 25 people.) And he's being called out for not having the Justice Department go after *crime* from the crash.

Taibbi also wrote a piece laying out a case for going after that crime.

This is not an argument for electing a Republican - which would be worse - or for their attacks on Obama - which are generally wrong.

Obama's Supreme Court appointments alone have been golden for the country, even if not enough to prevent bad 5-4 rulings.

Republican attacks really are little more than 'we want the power to steer taxpayer money our way again', 'we discover our hate of debt when a Democrat is President' nonsense.

But American faces a choice between a corrupt Republican and what is hard to call anything but a corrupted Democrat in the election - there is no progressive candidate.

Progressives are on the record with the right policies for the country largely in what they passed in House in the last session, that largely got nowhere in the filibustered Senate.

It's pretty clear they had no good friend in the White House - someone who seems to have found the Republicans convenient to use as an excuse for bad 'compromises'.

Obama has been contemptuous of his 'base', and they did not turn out that well in 2010, with pretty bad results for the country.

We have a problem.

Here's a link to the Taibbi article.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/frank-rich-blasts-obama-20110706

And here's one to Taibbi's piece on criminal charges for Wall Street.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511

 

[Macamus Prime]

Conservatives can finally praise Obama - he is starting to look after their own.

 

[Craig234]

Conservatives can finally praise Obama - he is starting to look after their own.

They can't, though, anymore than they praised Clinton no matter how much he did for the corporatist class; repealing Glass-Steagal and pushing NAFTA got an impeachment.

But what they can do is to celebrate that the only two choices the American people have in their corrupted, money-driven election are both corporatists.

I'll note that there are some conservatives who are better than this - we just don't hear from them much. Comes with that purging and radicalization of the right.

 

[Craig234]

People criticize Obama's recent hyping of 'ending corporate jet subsidies' as somehow aimed against the right - but for what purpose?

They seem clearly more aimed at the left - to buy him some credibility as 'attacking from the left against fat cats', but doing little more than to give him cover for selling out the left as he is reportedly pushing *MORE* cuts to Democratic priorities - reportedly $4 trillion now over the next decade, including more to Medicare and Social Security, pushing an increase of peanuts with ending the jet subsidy while not doing anything about the hedge fund exemption much less larger issues. The left seems his real target.

A betrayal of the left might win elections, but it screws the country.

Bernie Sanders has a petition telling him not to give in to Republican blackmail, but Obama seems more interested in using it for cover.

 

[Deeko]

Paragraphs are your friend.

 

[JimKiler]

Conservatives can finally praise Obama - he is starting to look after their own.

I did ask my democrat co worker how Bush got elected to a third term.

Freakanomics did a podcast about presidents and doing NOT what they pledge to do on the campaign trail. I do not think it was directed at Obama. But the point was that 1. the President is only one person and 2 they have no idea what they are up against when change is very hard in Washington.

 

[PingSpike]

I have no idea why a career politician would claim they had no idea what they were up against when it came to change in Washington. It seems they should have a much better idea since they are part of the god damn machine that makes change impossible.

Anyway, I never expected Obama to accomplish much...but he still managed to to fall short of my expectations. He sucks. Anything that fucking mattered that he said he would change he has ended up just extending Bush era policies on. Either he's a weasel or it literally doesn't matter who is president because the president is just a puppet anyway.

 

[Texashiker]

Obama, the Wall-Street sellout

In other news, water is wet and the sky is blue.

The people wanted change, they got change. Just not the type of change they were expecting.

As long as the people continue to elect the 2 party system into power, we will never have real change.

 

[JimKiler]

I have no idea why a career politician would claim they had no idea what they were up against when it came to change in Washington. It seems they should have a much better idea since they are part of the god damn machine that makes change impossible.

Anyway, I never expected Obama to accomplish much...but he still managed to to fall short of my expectations. He sucks. Anything that fucking mattered that he said he would change he has ended up just extending Bush era policies on. Either he's a weasel or it literally doesn't matter who is president because the president is just a puppet anyway.

I am not pessimistic as you but as in Obama's case closing gitmo might not have been an option since he could have learned info he only became privy to once he was sworn in. I think there is a lot we do not really know about to policies, and not in a subversive shadow government way.

 

[brencat]

Obama is being called out for 'forgetting' his 2008 campaign pledge to fix the hedge fund loophole (as Keith Olbermann IIRC pointed out last night, having just 25 hedge fund managers pay the same income tax rates as others - as they did before the loophole was given to them as part of the 2001 Bush borrowed tax cuts - it would raise $4 billion per year). Not going to fix the deficit, but this is 25 people.) And he's being called out for not having the Justice Department go after *crime* from the crash.

But America faces a choice between a corrupt Republican and what is hard to call anything but a corrupted Democrat in the election - there is no progressive candidate.

Progressives are on the record with the right policies for the country largely in what they passed in House in the last session, that largely got nowhere in the filibustered Senate.

It's pretty clear they had no good friend in the White House - someone who seems to have found the Republicans convenient to use as an excuse for bad 'compromises'.

Obama has been contemptuous of his 'base', and they did not turn out that well in 2010, with pretty bad results for the country.

It's not just you guys that are p*ssed about the carried interest loophole. Plenty of conservatives including myself are on record as being against that as it is wholly unfair. But I'm not sure that was part of the Bush 2001 tax cuts. It may have found its way in to an earlier bill... and Chuck Shumer, a NY Dem in bed with Wall St, has largely stymied any effort to repeal that as well so you can't blame only the Repubs here.

I told you before Obama was weak. It's part of his personality as he never really ever ran anything prior to office. He was a rabble rouser from the corrupt Chicago political machine without any real principles. That is why it is so easy for him to be a consensus builder and seek that compromise you complain about. But there is a big difference between theory and practice. I think it was a huge wake up call for him when he took office, especially on the security front.

Regardless, one thing I do agree with Obama on is that no one is entitled to get 100% of what they want -- neither Dems nor Repubs.

 

[Munky]

How's that hopey-changey thing working out for ya libtards?

When given the choice, Obama will do the same thing any other politician will do - hand out favors to the lobbyists while screwing their constituents.

 

[Anarchist420]

During the 2008 campaign, I said the US needed another FDR, and that I had real concerns whether Obama fit the bill. I hoped he would. He wasn't my first choice, or second.

Since he has been president, I've said there are a number of ways he's been far better than McCain (or Bush) would have - but others he's been quite bad, some as bad as them.

The US still needs that FDR figure; it needs someone to the left of him in 2012. And there's almost no chance of the happening.

Some of the 'progressive authors' are saying this same thing more. There was today a Glenn Greenwald piece referencing a Matt Taibbi piece referencing a Frank Rich piece.

Obama is being called out for 'forgetting' his 2008 campaign pledge to fix the hedge fund loophole (as Keith Olbermann IIRC pointed out last night, having just 25 hedge fund managers pay the same income tax rates as others - as they did before the loophole was given to them as part of the 2001 Bush borrowed tax cuts - it would raise $4 billion per year). Not going to fix the deficit, but this is 25 people.) And he's being called out for not having the Justice Department go after *crime* from the crash.

Taibbi also wrote a piece laying out a case for going after that crime.

This is not an argument for electing a Republican - which would be worse - or for their attacks on Obama - which are generally wrong.

Obama's Supreme Court appointments alone have been golden for the country, even if not enough to prevent bad 5-4 rulings.

Republican attacks really are little more than 'we want the power to steer taxpayer money our way again', 'we discover our hate of debt when a Democrat is President' nonsense.

But American faces a choice between a corrupt Republican and what is hard to call anything but a corrupted Democrat in the election - there is no progressive candidate.

Progressives are on the record with the right policies for the country largely in what they passed in House in the last session, that largely got nowhere in the filibustered Senate.

It's pretty clear they had no good friend in the White House - someone who seems to have found the Republicans convenient to use as an excuse for bad 'compromises'.

Obama has been contemptuous of his 'base', and they did not turn out that well in 2010, with pretty bad results for the country.

We have a problem.

Here's a link to the Taibbi article.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/frank-rich-blasts-obama-20110706

And here's one to Taibbi's piece on criminal charges for Wall Street.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511

I agree that Obama has been a disaster for leftists, and had I been a leftist, I would've known to never vote Democrat (in other words, the leftists who voted for him have no one but themselves to blame for not looking at his Senate voting record before they went to polls to vote for him).

The same thing goes with Al Gore. He and his party only like democrazy when it benefits them, an example being how they told poor Nader not to run in 2004, yet Al Gore always liked to stress how he won the "popular vote", without mentioning that he got a plurality, and also that he only got a plurality because a genuine leftist also ran. To this day, Al Gore also fails to admit that he would've gone into Iraq. Rather, he gets to criticize Bush for doing so, but only because Gore was never President and most people are so dumb and/or very ignorant. He's phony as fuck and he was a New Democrat, after all.

I also don't know why you think FDR was so progressive. He was basically the American Mussolini, who was known for his corporatism. You need to read John T Flynn (as well as "3 New Deals"). Flynn was a progressive pre-1933, just like you are, but then when he realized that FDR was nothing but a cronyist, he became a leading member of the Old Right, which was the true opposition to the banksters.

All that said, the only honest, genuine leftist in the Democratic Party today is Dennis Kucinich, who would likely be secretary of State under a Paul Presidency. Just like it's long past time for pro-market, pro-liberty people to abandon the Republican Party, it's time for the leftists to run away from the Democratic Party and never look back it. There haven't been any far leftist Democratic Presidents, while the only President close to a leftist humanitarian was a Progressive Republican--Hoover. At least a majority of his stimulus wasn't cronyist like FDRs was.

 

[ProfJohn]

During the 2008 campaign, I said the US needed another FDR, and that I had real concerns whether Obama fit the bill. I hoped he would. He wasn't my first choice, or second.

It took FDR 9 years to end the great depression... perhaps Obama is closer to him than you think.

Some of the 'progressive authors' are saying this same thing more. There was today a Glenn Greenwald piece referencing a Matt Taibbi piece referencing a Frank Rich piece.

So Matt Taibii the plagiarist was referencing a piece by the NY Times theater critic? If it had to do with Obama it was probably called "Les Misérables"

California is the most progressive state in the country. And what do you have to show for it? A huge budget problem and the second highest unemployment in the country.

Why don't you progressives fix your state before pushing your ideas on the rest of the country.

 

[ProfJohn]

They can't, though, anymore than they praised Clinton no matter how much he did for the corporatist class; repealing Glass-Steagal and pushing NAFTA got an impeachment.

Really??

I thought he got impeached for lying under oath...

But wait a second... if he got impeached for Glass-Steagal and NAFTA then why did all the Democrats rush to his side after the impeachment vote? Are you saying that they support Glass-Steagal and NAFTA too??

 

[JockoJohnson]

It took FDR 9 years to end the great depression... perhaps Obama is closer to him than you think.

So Matt Taibii the plagiarist was referencing a piece by the NY Times theater critic? If it had to do with Obama it was probably called "Les Misérables"

California is the most progressive state in the country. And what do you have to show for it? A huge budget problem and the second highest unemployment in the country.

Why don't you progressives fix your state before pushing your ideas on the rest of the country.

But..but..but that is because California sends all of their money to help the hillbillies in the red states. If they weren't so generous to the rest of the country, they'd be doing just fine. Am I right?

 

[techie81]

In other news, water is wet and the sky is blue.

The people wanted change, they got change. Just not the type of change they were expecting.

As long as the people continue to elect the 2 party system into power, we will never have real change.

QFT
/thread

 

[Modelworks]

Without some form of written contract saying what an elected official will and will not do with real consequences there will never be change. I can run and promise anything I like, then when in office I get 4 years to do whatever the hell I like and there is nothing you can do about it for those 4 years. During that time I can bankrupt the country, declare war, and kick people out of their homes and all you could do is complain. How is this different than having a monarchy ? The only difference is we limited them to 4 or 8 years.

 

[Mursilis]

But..but..but that is because California sends all of their money to help the hillbillies in the red states. If they weren't so generous to the rest of the country, they'd be doing just fine. Am I right?

You're right that Californians are stupid as bricks, especially for sending so much money out of state.

 

[airdata]

Let's let the only Obama lesson be this.

Official political affiliation means nothing. You could have had George Bush, McCain.. or hell... even a dude like Dennis Kucinich in office. Guess what?

They would make 90% of the same decisions.

I voted for Obama and my lesson was that voting is obviously pointless. My vote didn't count toward anything since my state went McCains way. And beside that, Obama turned out to do the same thing George Bush would do had he had a 3rd term in office.

All of the Left vs Right bickering just distracts from real issues.

 

[Texashiker]

I voted for Obama and my lesson was that voting is obviously pointless.

Voting for the same 2 party system is pointless.

If you want real change, the 2 major parties will either have to be removed from office, or share power with a third party.

 

[OCGuy]

LOL @ OP thinking there is a real difference between (R) and (D).

 

[trenchfoot]

Methinks Skull&Crossbones ideological blood is thicker than opposing political parties ideological blood in many ways.

 

[artikk]

Voting for the same 2 party system is pointless.

If you want real change, the 2 major parties will either have to be removed from office, or share power with a third party.

We could boycott voting on a national level until a viable third party is given a chance to compete/have candidates.

 

[werepossum]

We could boycott voting on a national level until a viable third party is given a chance to compete/have candidates.

Neither party gives a damn about a voting boycott as long as they get 50% plus one of those few votes cast.

 

[artikk]

Neither party gives a damn about a voting boycott as long as they get 50% plus one of those few votes cast.

Another way is to stop federal taxes and let the gov't starve itself. Of course, it will start just taking on more debt like it does right now anyway. I guess the best way is to ratify a constitutional amendment to institute the changes but that takes a very large consensus.